I'm curious about their methodology though. The key bit I could garner was that the Obamacare subsidy varies by geography and premium rates, while the Trump plan is a flat tax credit based on age. Given that one of the problems with Obamacare was that it resulted in significantly increased premiums, the on paper value of the subsidies will appear inflated (um... but are also one of the components of the "death spiral" that has made this program untenable in the long run). Comparing those inflated costs to more normal ones is unfair at the very least.

If, as a result of changing incentives and payment structures, premiums return to more normal numbers, than those projected cost benefits disappear. Ironically, what this map is really measuring is how much of a problem cost overruns are under Obamacare. It relies on the somewhat bizarre assumption that spending more dollars is always better. Making this a tax credit (presumably tied to actual health expenditures over a year), makes the program more efficient since it focuses dollars on where they are actually needed, and in theory creates at least some incentive to keep costs low. The subsidy program in Obamacare was more or less "we're giving you this amount to pay for your health insurance, whether you need it or not, or whether you use it or not". Which was basically a free gimme to the health industry and provided them incentives to find ways to artificially increase costs (the higher the costs, the bigger the subsidy, and thus the more money they could make for the same health care).

The negotiations on the bill are still ongoing, and I'm sure there are still many changes to make. I have no clue how good or bad the result will be, but one of the things I did find amusing was the degree of media coverage about "Divisions in the GOP" over healthcare. Um... What you're seeing right now is healthy debate about a bill. They're actually doing what they complained about the Democrats not doing. They're reading the bill. Then debating the bill. Then making changes to the bill. That's a huge contrast to Democrats who were told by their leadership to just put their heads down and support whatever came out of committee, and don't worry about bothering to read it or debate it.

This is actually how the process is supposed to work, yet somehow it's being painted as a negative. Funny.

The negotiations on the bill are still ongoing, and I'm sure there are still many changes to make

Er, no. They're ramming the bill through committees because the negotiations aren't ongoing and they're trying to force this bill through as soon as possible. They know that a delay and debate on it will be deadly for their chances of getting it passed. Ryan is pressing the Senate to pass it as is instead of passing their own bill.

Now, it might end up where this bill fails and they're forced to come up with something new but that's not the plan or intent.

Now, it might end up where this bill fails and they're forced to come up with something new but that's not the plan or intent.

Let's Select Your Adventure this. "It won't fail because --" corrupt liberal media is lying about it and it's actually perfect.corrupt liberal politicians are lying about it and it's actually perfect.corrupt liberal analysts are lying about it and it's actually perfect.corrupt liberal doctors and insurance companies are lying about it and it's actually perfect.corrupt people pretending to be conservatives are lying about it and it's actually perfect.

There, I just saved you five pages.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how this new plan lowers health care costs. I mean, wasn't that supposed to be the point of all this legislation? Or has that gotten lost over the years? Seems like they're basically keeping the same broken program, just fiddling with some of the details a bit.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how this new plan lowers health care costs.

You're not missing it, the price tag and all the analysis have been conveniently left out.

Yay for democracy!

I mean, I know it's not a "finished product" or whatever, but I'd still feel more at ease if there was some serious backlash from the industry on this one. Many of the "no comment" and otherwise neutral responses from the health care companies lead me to believe they're not really doing much to address the excess bloat in the system.

I hear that the man who will do just about anything to get his named placed in gold letters on buildings, steaks and a fake university, is objecting to calling the GOP healthcare plan "Trumpcare."

Think about it.

Even the idiot in chief thinks this is a bad plan, while pushing for it's passing.

____________________________

In the place of a Dark Lord you would have a Queen! Not dark but beautiful and terrible as the Morn! Treacherous as the Seas! Stronger than the foundations of the Earth! All shall love me and despair! -ElneClare

This Post is written in Elnese, If it was an actual Post, it would make sense.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how this new plan lowers health care costs. I mean, wasn't that supposed to be the point of all this legislation? Or has that gotten lost over the years? Seems like they're basically keeping the same broken program, just fiddling with some of the details a bit.

Isn't finalized yet, but based on the bullet points the GOP wants, here's a few:

1. Removes the mandates for coverage. Meaning, you can choose to only cover things you think you'll need instead of "everything". This, by itself, is a major point of cost savings, since the introduction of such is what caused premiums, co-pays, etc to sky rocket to unsustainable levels under Obamacare. You could literally just roll that back and do nothing else and costs to consumers will go down.

2. If they can put in changes to allow purchase of insurance across state lines, this may also reduce costs. In many states, there's may only be one or two insurers, in some just one, and now thanks to Obamacare, some states are heading in the direction of having *none*. Creating competition is always a good thing. How much this may reduce costs is unknown, but if implemented, it at least could do so.

3. Tort reform. This has been an issue for the GOP all along. Again, there's some question as to whether they can get this put in, but this can be a huge cost increase for care. Health care providers are basically faced with choosing between over covering or risking lawsuits if someone get sick because they failed to do that extra test or check for that extra thing. And the extra coverage is easier to just pass right into the insurance system and back to the consumer, so that's often what they do.

Those are just three right off the top of my head. A number of other elements are possible as well. Again, just removing many of the mandates and regulations put in place by Obamacare can reduce costs. Changing *where* the coverage gaps are can make a huge differences as well. I suspect that one of the big problems with the ACA was that it attempted to eliminate the coverage gap (point where government subsidies don't cover enough, but the person can't afford to make up the difference themselves). The problem is that all it did was push that gap upward in the economic system. Which, ironically, meant that instead of an earnings pool made up mostly of single people in their 20s with no children being in the gap, it became an earnings pool mostly made up of working class families. As you shift money to pay more in subsidies to fill the gap, that results in a cost increase to everyone who was previously above the gap, and some of them will have some combination of employers dropping their coverage and themselves being no longer able to pay out of pocket for insurance. Combine that effect with coverage mandates which *also* increase costs, and the result is a large gap in coverage at a higher economic level.

Plus the CBO says that 24,000,000 people will lose their insurance by 2027 under the GOP plan. Think of all the money we can save by having them die!

By 2027?! Um... Seriously? You'll have to forgive me for taking that figure with a massive grain of salt.

I'm also curious what they're actually measuring here (seems like a recurring theme here, like "jobs created or saved"). Are these people who will no longer be under the exact same insurance provider in 10 years as they are today? Um... Is that unusual? I have no clue. Is this just counting people who are insured today, but who wont be in 10 years? Ok. Does that include people who are, you know, going to die of old age in the next 10 years, even with health care the whole time (I would assume they aren't counted in this, but you never know). Or is it counting the total number of people in our population today who are insured and then comparing it to some hypothetical number in 10 years and then doing subtraction? Er... Again, how do they know?

The problem with CBO calculations (as I've pointed out for years and years on a number of different topics), is that they have to calculate based on the assumption that the same actions are taken after a legal change as they are before that change. They treat everything as zero sum. If the bar for assistance dollars changes by X amount, they assume that everyone who was below the bar before, but now is above it, can't afford the thing it was providing. They assume that every dollar taken away or added to some program has the same weight as the dollars currently there. But the act of changing these things changes how the results are calculated. In many cases, that's precisely the reason for making the change.

Heck. It could be as simple as the GOP saying that if we remove the mandates, we will drive down the cost to employee people, which will result in greater hiring, which will result in greater economic growth, which, over the next ten years, will result in more people being employed in higher paying jobs, and thus being able to afford health care directly. Without a single dollar of assistance. That's a calculation that the CBO can't do though. It has to assume the same exact stratification of economic conditions across the population. Again, this is why they were so wrong with the scoring for the ACA. Their numbers assumed a similar rate (or a return to rates) of GDP growth, employment, etc that we enjoyed prior to the 2008 crash. Except that we didn't get those growth numbers. Not even remotely close. And at least some of that lack of growth was directly attributable to the passage of the ACA itself.

It's the same age old issue. Democrats tend to want to treat the symptoms of problems, while Republicans want to fix the problem itself. Where the CBO scoring fails is that it can't calculate "more people making more money" into its equation. And it also can't calculate "more people making less money" either. So yeah, I'm going to assume they're just as wrong with this calculation as they were with the ACA itself.

Plus the CBO says that 24,000,000 people will lose their insurance by 2027 under the GOP plan. Think of all the money we can save by having them die!

By 2027?! Um... Seriously? You'll have to forgive me for taking that figure with a massive grain of salt.

Ignoring inconvenient stuff is kind of your forte so you're forgiven.

Well, let's start with the accuracy of the CBO scoring of the ACA, shall we? Or is that a bit too "inconvenient" for you.

Ironically, that score was wrong for the exact same reasons I just spoke of. And those reasons were brought up by conservatives at the time, and also ignored then. It's almost like you'd think that in a sane world, you'd start realizing just how often conservatives are right about these sorts of things, and the liberals are just plain dead wrong.

Quote:

People who championed Ryan's "I had the Heritage Foundation score it!!" budget lose the right to comment about the CBO

While you're at it, how about people who defended the birther movement for years? They lose the right to comment about it too, right!

If you didn't take everything with so much salt, you wouldn't be such a salty motherfucker.

____________________________

Jophiel wrote:

Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.

The White House's own estimates are 26,000,000 -- so I guess you got the CBO there!

The best part is that the first 14m to lose their insurance will be by 2018 is a little detail that seems to be lost by both sides of the argument. Well, that and how in the decade of being told just how much better the GOP plan was for "the people" this is what they came out the gate with.

____________________________

George Carlin wrote:

I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.